linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: socket: use BIT_MASK for MSG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADxym3bsqAH969H-P8SSam+_gbjgWkxP90Zh-RnzDaOJuwD3ig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:29:40 +0800
From:   Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "dong.menglong@....com.cn" <dong.menglong@....com.cn>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: socket: use BIT_MASK for MSG_*

Hello!

On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:20 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 6, 2021, <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Menglong Dong <dong.menglong@....com.cn>
>>
>> The bit mask for MSG_* seems a little confused here. Replace it
>> with BIT_MASK to make it clear to understand.
>
>
> It makes it more confusing if you understand the difference between BIT_MASK() and BIT(). I think you have to use the latter. And note () when referring to the function or macro.
>

I replaced BIT_MASK() with BIT() in the patch of v2, and it looks much
more tidy.
I can't figure out the difference between BIT() and BIT_MASK(), seems
the latter one more safe... isn't it?

Thanks:)
Menglong Dong